The House of Commons Speaker has told David Davis to appear in front of the Brexit select committee within days or face the prospect of being held to be guilty of a contempt of parliament, which some MPs said would mean he would be forced to resign.

John Bercow said the Brexit secretary needed to explain himself to MPs after failing to release unedited reports on the potential impact of Brexit, which prompted a string of angry representations from opposition – and even Conservative – politicians.

They expressed fury that a series of reports outlining the potential impact of Brexit on 58 sectors had been heavily edited before the government handed them over to parliament’s select committee on exiting the EU.

Officials had withheld information deemed to be market sensitive or that could hamper EU negotiations despite a binding and unanimous vote by MPs demanding that the documents be handed over in full.

Now ministers are considering whether to attempt to push another vote through parliament to validate the decision or face the possibility of a contempt motion, which some Tories believe would be seen as a vote of confidence in the government.

Some are even pointing to the precedent in Canada – where the same parliamentary rules apply and Stephen Harper’s government collapsed after it failed to comply with a similar motion and was then deemed to be in contempt of parliament.

Chris Bryant MP said it would take more to topple Theresa May’s government because the fixed term parliament act required a specific confidence vote. But he added: “I would have thought that if the speaker had decided that there was a prima facie case to be considered that a minister had committed a contempt of parliament, that minister would have to resign.”

The Brexit committee chair, Hilary Benn, said that the edited documents were “not in keeping with the resolution that was passed by the House of Commons” and objected to any suggestion that his team would not keep sensitive information out of the public domain.

Davis agreed to appear in front of the committee, with a hearing set for the middle of next week.

Bercow called on the Perth MP to resubmit his letter in light of developments, and said he would consider it in a timely way. He said he would advise an “urgent audience” between the committee and the Brexit secretary.

“I think when it is suggested that that meeting should be soon, it means soon, not weeks hence. It means very soon indeed. No other diarised engagement is more important than respecting the house, and in this case the committee of the house, which has ownership of this matter and to which the papers were to be provided,” said Bercow.

“As and when matters evolve, if a further representation alleging contempt is made to me I will consider it very promptly and come back to the house. I hope the house knows me well enough to know that I will do my duty.”

The issue has been pushed by a Labour MP on the committee, Seema Malhotra, who said the government simply could not wiggle out of the situation. “There is no way that ministers can keep up the pretence that they have met the terms of the motion. Their claim doesn’t stand up to scrutiny and if the government whips try and table a new motion to move the goalposts in the coming days they will be scoring an own goal because MPs won’t stand for it.” She said Davis’s choice was to give over the information or “face the inescapable charge that he is holding parliament in contempt”.

A Tory MP, Anna Soubry, agreed that the motion was clear and that ministers were now prevaricating in a way that had got “them into a terrible mess”. She said the speaker had been clear that a second vote wouldn’t fix the problem – and she hit back at anyone comparing a contempt motion to one of no confidence in the government to deter a rebellion.

“To start to fly flags that this could be a vote of confidence – we’ve had this before when we were branded mutineers. People won’t put up with it. We were put here to do a job,” she said, claiming it was a question of respect for parliament.

Labour had triggered an urgent question on the issue, in which Starmer made clear that the motion had demanded “not some of the reports, not redacted copies, the full reports”.

“Whether he is in contempt of parliament is a matter we may have to come to. He is certainly treating parliament with contempt.”

Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, also complained that the documents – which were demanded after Davis said officials were drawing up detailed impact assessments covering the 58 sectors – were squeezed into two lever arch files.

“That’s the volume of paperwork I would have expected for a pretty routine crown court trial in my old world.”

Davis did not attend parliament to respond, with the Brexit minister Robin Walker appearing instead and insisting that the issue was being taken “very seriously”. He argued that there had never been 58 separate reports in the form that had been demanded, and revealed that officials had spent three weeks collating the information it had in a way that is “accessible and informative”.

He said material that was commercially sensitive or thought likely to hamper Britain’s negotiating position had been kept out.

Walker told colleagues that all MPs would be able to read the documents in a special room in parliament.